Murphy-O'Connor must have fallen
over the edge when he leaned back to kiss the Blarney stone.
This backward-thinking prelate rose to become Apostolic
Administrator of the See of Westminster and President of the
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. Sounds
impressive until you remember that a Roman Catholic anything is
not much to shake a stick at in a country that has a state
religion called the Church of England.

Does it strike anyone as odd that
someone who has taken a vow of celibacy and condemns
contraception should pontificate on the subject of what it is to
be a human being? This is a fellow who believes God is one being
but three persons, and had himself killed to save the creatures
he made who wouldn't obey him. This is a fellow who belongs to
an organization whose biggest public relations issue of late has
involved clergy who molest children and church leaders who
protect the molesters. Check this out from the BBC:

Murphy-O'Connor found himself
subject to public scrutiny regarding a priest in his diocese
when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. During this time it
was brought to his attention that a priest, Michael Hill, was a
child sexual abuser. Instead of reporting Hill to the police,
Murphy-O'Connor allegedly allowed the crime to be covered up and
transferred Hill to Gatwick Airport chapel, where the cardinal
believed he would not be able to molest children. In 1997, Hill
was finally convicted as a child molester and jailed for
sexually assaulting nine children. After three years in jail,
Hill was given another five years for assaulting three other
boys. In 2000, when O'Connor ascended to the status of
Archbishop of Westminster, the case became known to the general
public.*

What can you say about someone
who thinks his full humanity depends on the grandeur of his
delusions? May he rest in peace? Whoever said "hell is other
people" must have met too many Murphy-O'Connors. The cardinal is
as "old school" as they get. He not only thinks homosexuality is
a sin, he thinks he eats the body, blood, soul, and divinity of
Jesus when he swallows the Eucharist.

On the other hand, just because
he's a flawed human being doesn't mean his argument that
atheists aren't fully human is a bad argument. After all, the
cardinal gave proof. His evidence was the claim that to be fully
human you have to have a sense of and be connected to
transcendence. Okay. So, instead of piling on the ad hominems,
we should just say that he's
begging the question. He assumes
what he should be proving, namely, that being connected to the
transcendent is a necessary condition for being fully human. He
asserts it without proof. By committing a logical fallacy, he
proves he's human, fully human. But we still await the evidence
that to be fully human one must be connected to the
transcendent, which, as I understand that term, is completely
non-human.

*From the
donkey (as opposed to ex cathedra or from the chair),
not from the rear end, which would be something like de
rectum or more simply plenum de flatulentia).